( mccolgan55 )

Comments made by mccolgan55

Your Social Security card is specified as a NON-ID card. In many states the driver's license is used as the government issued photo ID required for many, many things these days. However, if they are given to individuals who are not legal residents then the drivers license will not/cannot be used and EVERYONE will need to get a separate government issued photo ID that is not the driver's license. Check with Arizona.

That said, the license for these individuals can be made distinct from the current license to ensure it is used only for driving. Underage licenses are distinct, these can be too.

Re-read Gchristian's comment, Len. He stated the previous post had nothing to do with THIS story and then his comment of "they will get burnt by they system" meant if guilty they will be punished. and ended with "It will come down to context, situation and intent."

The facts will be adjudicated in a court of law not on a comment board.Seems YOUR bias is showing.

I have to agree with the majority. This is a waste of money and totally inappropriate as palms are not native, not pretty, not pedestrian friendly, not fiscally sound, not in any way a good idea. Maybe the Centre City Development Corp. and SANDAG should get the opinion of some local urban landscape experts first and maybe get some submissions?

The "accident" happened at 11:46pm on a weeknight with under 18 year olds. Why were these kids out this late? Why were they driving other under 18 year olds? This was obviously a case of teenagers believing they are invincible and parents not enforcing the law of who their children are allowed to transport late at night.Based on previous years this is only the beginning of the spring break to end of school year teen driving "accident" season. It is up to all parents and students and ANYONE who sees the breaking of these needed laws to speak up and let someone know when this is happening.

“We are a regulated utility and we are allowed to regulated rate of return that we have the opportunity to earn," she said. "There’s no guarantees.”

Maybe not a guarantee but the PUC has consistently raised rates to ensure a rate of return for stockholders. Since stockholders can buy stock the same as any other business but WE cannot choose another "vendor" we are held hostage to the presumed good business sense of SDGE If they are allowed to recoup uninsured costs what is to prevent them from consistently uninsuring or underinsuring thereby lowering their cost, improving the stockholders rate of return, and sticking it to the rate payer? The reason SDGE cannot get adequate insurance is because they have shown bad business sense by not maintaining clearance of their lines. It is exactly the same as a car owner who continues to have accidents, his rates go up because he is a bad risk. If SDGE does what they should their insurance rates will go down in the future. In the meantime the stockholders must pay for the company's stupidity, not the held hostage rate payers.

Anybody else notice that the drier the city the better they seem to be able to track their water? Maybe there is something to be said for living in a semi-desert area. That said, I refer back to the "Public Utilities Flush With Cash But Behind On Projects" story. Get going on the projects = fewer breaks = lower cost. Seems simple to me!

So the story is: We have the money but its not surplus because we haven't completed the projects. The projects aren't done because we can't figure out which ones to do first. We can't figure out which ones to do first because we have no analysts to do that. We have completed some projects and they cost less than we anticipated but oh yes we still need the increases because we have unfinished projects. Somewhat convoluted thinking there.I especially like the part about the cast iron pipes being completed when only 2/3 of the pipes have been completed. Did ANYONE at the Public Utilities Department go to school and learn math?

Peking-if marriage were just a "government issued license" then there shouldn't be any problem with the civil union law in California which has been in place for over 10 years. Therefore, no rights denied.

The main point I was making was that my religious rights are being worn down over and over by the supposed "civil rights" groups. Look at Obama's stand on supplying "reproductive rights" whether or not a Catholic institution wants to cover it or not. As for abortion, birth control, morning after pill, etc., they are continually trying to force providers to provide whether they want to or not because it is the "woman's right" no matter the beliefs of the provider.

As for allowing "society" to determine what is right all I can say is slavery, internment, child labor and adultery. All of which have been condoned by society at some point in our history.

My biggest concern about legalizing same sex marriage or polygamous marriage or any of the other non-traditional marriages is that marriage has for the most part been a religious ceremony for much of the last few hundred years. Prior to that it was a property/chattel institution but it developed into a religious based ceremony. By legalizing any non man/woman unions as marriage I anticipate that like the abortion situation it will develop into a MUST do situation as the pro-abortionists are trying now and all clergy would be required to perform a ceremony or be sued. I most firmly believe that my right to religious freedom is being continually reduced and ridiculed.

I do not know if it is a legitimate mistake or an actual "closet" Nazi loving group. What I DO know is that the level of education in this country is so bad that it is not even likely that most high school graduates KNOW the SS symbol, they probably barely know the symbols of our own country let alone those of 1930s Germany.